Is "Normal" normal?

What is normal? Normal, norm-al. The essence of this word is "norm". What is the norm around you?

When we consider something normal, we see it as something that happens, that doesn't show itself off and attract our attention. Because thing acts like what we've seen everyday, dull and boring, at least from the outer perspective (without deeper insights), we consider it as normal. A "normal" could preserve temporarily, as in someone that are actually "outside the society" temporarily suppress him/herself to act like the surroundings, to not attract attention; or it could be more permanent, that is, someone that let their surrouding washes over them, hence they act like their surrounding does, naturally.

Now, what seems normal to you may not seem normal to others. For example, because of the difference in culture, it may be normal to act and behave in some manner that may be aggressive when seen from other cultures. After all, norm is a local perspective: it's only a norm that exist within a specific society that has a short influence. Though there are more global influences nowadays, if we think back to pre-internet society, when information exchanges are difficult, war and conflict arises because of the clashes of different norms. What seen from one as normal aren't normal from another. Plus humans generally have weak beliefs, and it's easier to eradicate something abnormal, something outside of their control, than trying to change their own viewpoints of the normal. Naturally, humans are scared to be influenced by the currently abnormal/conflicting viewpoints, so the "safest route" is eradication, that is, so abnormal viewpoints don't exist in the world to shake their beliefs.

Think of the past when Galileo mentioned that Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way round. It shook the beliefs of The Church at the time, that we are not the center of the universe, that things does not revolve around us, that we are not in control of everything, that God(s) does not put its center (of attention) on us. Instead of changing to belief science, it's easier to have Galileo eradicated, isn't it? After all, shaking a belief is not something small. If one's belief is shaken, it's easier for one to collapse, to seek to end one's life, because what we've been doing up till now, is pointless. To ensure that what we do are meaningful, our brain tell us to eradicate those uncontrollable situations, those external circumstances, so we can still live in our dream, be it the dream will live true or not (i.e. what's shaking our beliefs isn't necessarily true, and what we're believing right now isn't necessarily false).

Perhaps we can talk more of fantasy. In an animation one watched, monsters fed on emotions. Emotions are like the infrared radar we now currently use to detect "hot bodies" (i.e. hot-blooded animals, including humans) from the surroundings (trees and soil and air that has usually lower "body-temperature" than us, or some other hot blooded animals). Therefore, to prevent from being found, the top-level executives restrict their residents from touching emotions, including love. What seems to them, that being emotionless, is normal. Someone that fall in love with one another is seem as abnormal and are to be eradicated, in the burning chamber, as a role model to strengthen others' beliefs that being emotionless is required to stay within the city. Seeing from our perspective, that we have love freedom, that's abnormal, and compressive of human's nature. But to them? We are the ones that are abnormal.

Let's talk about the past. Slavery is normal to other slaves. Slaves wants to be high-ranking slaves, to be higher than other slaves, earn more than other slaves, and work less than other slaves, than trying to reach the "resident" level that's seemingly unreachable. If you'd live in such era with your current "normal", to treat people as equal (or at least more equal than it used to be, since stereotypes still exist nowadays that let us treat people unequally)... Assume you'd become a resident, or maybe higher-level resident. If you treat your slaves like you treat other residents, they might think that they did something wrong, they start bow beneath your feet and ask for your forgiveness even if they don't know what they did wrong; but since you treat them now as being "too good" they feel that it's being abnormal since they're to be called here and there like how we give instructions to computer, and be followed exactly as ordered. Having a choice to choose, even if it's only a "yes" or "no", is a luxury of residents, not slaves. They are normal, you are abnormal.

Even nowadays, despite no large scale wars and people are slowly accepting each other with demolishing boundaries, by constantly telling ourselves that what other people choose is their choice; we can only accept if it's not affecting us, that the ones being abnormal has no whatsoever relations with us. If they are our friends, we start feeling like we need to change them so they become more "normal". If you'd have higher social intelligence, perhaps you might be more caring towards one another. Quite a lot of relationships nowadays, usually the ones less attractive than close friends (acquaintances, colleagues, normal friends), (some of us) we care more about ourselves instead. We did not think, oh, are they acting normal from their point of view? We think instead: are they acting normal from OUR point of view? And one sees that as kinda abnormal. We are acting abnormal, from their point of view. Imagine if you have conflicting culture/behavior with your friends that you can't tolerate with the positives in your relationship, and what you act normal is abnormal to your friends, and you get questioned by them, saying: "Hey, I think you're problematic, because this (normal thing) is abnormal. Perhaps you should pay a visit to the doctor/psychotherapy/whatever specialists?" What would you think? What would you feel?

Conclusion

In conclusion, "normal" is relative. One's "normal" is different from another's "normal". The next time you judge someone being normal or abnormal, think more deeply. It's okay in the past, most probably you aren't aware of what's affecting you thinking others as normal and abnormal, usually your surroundings. But in the future, perhaps give it more of a question, to question your own judgment whether things you think is abnormal is really abnormal from the view of the other person. And is the abnormal really is intolerable, or it's just something small that they kept for themselves, that you might see their abnormality when they're alone, and when interacting with them they're kinda normal. It's best to avoid judging until you understand more of their points of view. And most importantly, don't tell them in their face nor behind their back that they're abnormal to other people without first understand more of their points of view.

Extra

And one was playing a game these few weeks. Ignore the spoilers. It starts with a world with continuous wars. People are born from "the cradle" (albeit, a machinery where your DNA was stored on a computer, and you are put into life with the DNA database plus the DNA components), immediately they are age 10. As some story bosses needs "life" itself to ensure they live forever, people can only live up to age 20, which they will, and they must, be sent to "the homecoming" (which is just a slaughtering chamber where your remaining live forces is sucked to further extend the story bosses lifespan). But most didn't even live to their homecoming, but die in constant battles, which is preferred because the shorter life they live, the more life could be sucked out of them to extend a day or two days more of the story bosses lifespan. After that, since their DNA are still stored on the computer, and the "cradle" still exist, they're recreated endless amount of time, the same person, without their previous memories, forever as life forces. As the story progresses, the protagonists free the people from the need to fight, and the machinery that sucks their life forces when they're killed (homecoming have a different machinery), some people cannot accept the scary truth that they don't need to fight anymore. After all, they live to fight, and fight to live, and they only know how to live to fight. That's their only skill. What can they do if they don't fight? Nothing. They're not taught anything outside of fighting. They're free? No. It's an uncertain future they're facing.

Ask yourself, do you dare to face the future with much uncertain, or you'd like more certainly (with only little or no uncertainty), most in your control? Ignore my question if you like to gamble. And with much uncertain, are you sure you can keep moving ahead despite the unknowns, even if what lies ahead means you no longer have comfortable lives that you now lives? Especially, if it puts you in a worse situation, perhaps you might end up as a beggar or something? Oh, and even the positive: you got to live better, would be appreciate what you have then, or wish for more, insatiably? If you don't live what you live now, without daydreaming, how would you walk your path ahead? Or, do you wish for the endless now, that your lives stay as current till the end of your life?